The Cartographers’ Guild is a forum created by and for map makers and aficionados, a place where every aspect of cartography can be admired, examined, learned, and discussed. Our membership consists of professional designers and artists, hobbyists, and amateurs—all are welcome to join and participate in the quest for cartographic skill and knowledge.

Although we specialize in maps of fictional realms, as commonly used in both novels and games (both tabletop and role-playing), many Guild members are also proficient in historical and contemporary maps. Likewise, we specialize in computer-assisted cartography (such as with GIMP, Adobe apps, Campaign Cartographer, Dundjinni, etc.), although many members here also have interest in maps drafted by hand.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. You will have to register before you can post or view full size images in the forums.

CWBP 2: World Map construction thread

Since the project seems to have ground to a halt, and since I'm interested in seeing it continue (hopefully I'm not the only one) I have a new approach:

Our first step here is to make the world map.

Here is the continent mask I suggest we use:

This was constructed from pieces of the previous submitted maps from every author, they have been manipulated pretty heavily I suppose, but still they are there. I used my proposal map as a basis for it's construction keeping the elements of the overall world that I liked.

So first things first let us first discuss and address any problems seen with this map. After that I suggest we figure out the tectonics and lay in the mountain ranges, then after running it through Wilbur a couple of erosions cycles, we can work our the climate. Once that is all done we shall have our world map and we can move forwards.

Note: I measured the pixels with a proportionally representative projection and it works out to about 70% water, but I may have done it wrong. To me it seems ideal.

I've just found another mapping trope.
I was thinking that it looked wrong until I got it upside down. It look much better in my opinion probably because we are so used to have the landmasses in the north. It's arbitrary but it's the same thing here : http://blog.lib.umn.edu/globerem/main/Publication2.jpg

The map could look better (but become less practical for reasons mentioned a long time ago) by using a different projection. (I like mollweide) This is especially true for the poles. They are really distorted.

Is linking the continent (or one of them) to the pole another trope ? I saw this in a couple of maps including one made by -Max- (probably a commission). I would prefer to have an ice bridge. If there is sufficient ice in the north, this is easy to achieve. With some islands, the ice get trapped, does not flow south and take longer to melt. It's just an idea.

I have no problem reworking the tectonics of my continent (the biggest blob) it was too simplistic anyway.

If it's possible it would be nice to also include some part of Thurlor second map.

waldonrate: Yeah a continent at each pole, it just seemed interesting to me is the only reason. Part of this is that I wanted to include a "lake" there in the Southern pole. My thinking is that it will actually be a lower than sea level basin due to sublimation and lack of any input of new water and just be an interesting feature with good story possibilities. Perhaps I'm wrong, though, snow melt in summer could fill it I suppose, not really too sure on the scientific aspect TBH.

Azelor: The only reason it's in equirectangular is because that's the input of the NASA Map Projector thing. I think it's easier to conceptualize and work with also. For the final presentation I think we should use an expanding grid, and split the poles off and grid them separately.

Personally one of the reasons I liked the concept was because it was South heavy but we can flip it around, it's not important to me. I'm still thinking of it in terms of Northern culture dominating so it's somewhat challenging even in this state. It just strikes me as a good way to counter our own preconceptions for creative possibilities.

As for the land bridge to the Southern pole it is largely superfluous due to the likelihood of ice forming, but I figured the North sea had the ice possibility for a bridge and was just interested in a narrative sense of having a pole connected by land to the mainland. We can eliminate it if you want, but I feel like it has some good story potential there.

(It was actually Thulor's second map which I ended up using, it forms those four big islands just off the South pole. I haven't however used any elements of his first map because I couldn't think of what to do with them, but now I'm thinking we can use them for inland lakes or seas or something of that nature.
I used your northern island continent just above the big one and when I was editing it melded with that southern portion of one of my islands very well so I left it and it got kind of mangled too )

Interesting. Ice is likely to persist at the poles if there's something to attach to (even if there's not if it's cold enough). Antarctica has an ice cap about 2 miles thick, despite receiving effectively zero precipitation. Wikipedia suggests that the buildup at the actual pole is due largely to blown-in snow due to high winds.

My interest in the polar regions was mostly due to the continents being almost exactly centered on the poles. If that's land + ice, then it makes sense.

Here's a Wagner VII (equal-area) projection with a couple of stereographic endcaps.

Ah I understand, yeah I see your point, I hadn't even considered that, so no I cant say I was thinking of ice . Part of the problem is that while editing them I couldn't think of a way to work on the world 'endcaps' in a reasonable way and then try and stretch them out like that. I'm doing this all in GIMP so far.

I prefer the original map orientation with the south-heavy landmasses. Just looks more aestethically pleasing to me.

As for the poles, one of the polar islands looks really tiny now. My suggestion is to either remove it or make it bigger (very easy to do, just move the coastline some distance away from the map's edge and whitefill the empty space). I don't really care whether either of them is connected to one of the continents.

I prefer the original map orientation with the south-heavy landmasses. Just looks more aestethically pleasing to me.

I agree.

As for the poles, one of the polar islands looks really tiny now. My suggestion is to either remove it or make it bigger (very easy to do, just move the coastline some distance away from the map's edge and whitefill the empty space). I don't really care whether either of them is connected to one of the continents.

I think I've thought of a way to edit the poles in a more reasonable manner in conjunction with G. Projector. In which case the two polar continents will become more interesting. It this fails I think I'll just ring one of the poles around with islands (the Southern pole in the original proposal).

The reason why I like the map that way is probably because I was the one working on that continent so I grew found of it's shape.
but I guess I can always flip the map to admire her true beauty...

I got something to ask.
Before I wanted as many as people as possible in the project. Around 20 regular participants. It's been a while and not much as been done because I was waiting. I was afraid that if I started why too few people, the future part of the project would be less likely to interest new members. Maybe people will still want to participate in the future.

We need to decide if we want to move forward even if we have only 3, or 4 members giving their opinions on the map. Or not.
I would say, let people debate but do not expect a burst of activity. Especially not at this stage. Maybe it's just because people aren't good to design good looking world map and things might get easier once we sort this out. After all, a lot of members have a lot of imagination.

So we do this part the best we can, even if we are only 3. Otherwise nothing will move.